Ben Henry
Digital art chapt 1 response,
The beginning of the chapter talks about appropriation, the idea that by using digital technology as a tool one can take images, with relative ease, from the original source or artist, and transform or collage the image to create something new. Artists have always borrowed compositional ideas and media techniques from one another. Manet (Olympia) borrowed extensively from Titian (Venus of Urbino), but changed enough of the composition and theme to make the art different, and in the process started what most art historians call “modern art”. However similar the overall first impressions may be, the concepts are miles apart. Manet was borrowing but putting his own time, effort and originality into the piece.
I have to agree with the author that instant copying of digitized images is being taken for granted. However in regards to the authenticity, authority and aura being destroyed by reproduction as debatable, I would have to side with Walter Benjamin. I would rather stand in front of an original, to see what the creator saw, to feel the aura, than stand in front of a reproduction. I would contend that an original sculpture, painting or even digital artwork is more authentic based on the fact of original, creative inception of the concept for the piece, alongside with the physical process of creating or building the original. These factors give an original authority over the reproduction or appropriated, manipulated copy.
The further I read into the chapter the more I could see the other side of the debate. For example, Andreas Muller-Pohle, Digital Scores III. Although it has been directly copied, this piece has been so far removed from the original it was taken from, that it becomes entirely new both visually and conceptually. It carries its own authenticity. To me, this is not appropriation, but when an image is copied and only slightly manipulated, not only is that artistically immoral, but shows a lack of ingenuity.
